Agenda item

Erection of residential building to form 35no. apartments with associated landscaping and public realm improvements to adjacent Rest Gardens following demolition of former Tramways Club. [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a major full application for the erection of residential building to form 35no. apartments with associated landscaping and public realm improvements to adjacent Rest Gardens following demolition of former Tramways Club.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans and the Principal Development Management Officer provided an update which outlined an additional representation from the Civic Trust and an additional comment from the council’s Public Realm Operations Manager.  Condition 22 was amended to read as follows:

Landscaping – condition 22

The hard landscaping measures as shown on the landscape masterplan shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

Within a period of six months of commencement of the development a soft landscaping scheme shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and fully installed in accordance with the approved details.  Prior to first occupation of the development, a completion notice shall be served on the Local Planning Authority and approval in writing shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority that the approved scheme has been satisfactorily provided.   

The Officer’s recommendation remained for approval subject to the conditions set out within the report and as amended above.

In response to questions from Members, it was confirmed that a condition regarding holiday lets was not required as using the properties for holiday lets would result in a material change of use requiring planning permission.

Public Speakers

Margaret Rollinson, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She raised concerns regarding the height of the proposed development as she felt it was not in keeping with the conservation area.  She also highlighted the limited parking available currently, and stated that the parking would be much worse in the future if the application was to be approved.

In response to questions, she stated it was difficult to get tradespeople to attend properties when there was no parking in the area.  She raised concerns in relation to the limitations that cycles have, if they are the only means of transport for residents in the development.

Cllrs Melly and Clarke, Guildhall Ward Cllrs, spoke in objection to the application.  They highlighted the development’s proximity to the city walls and noted that it did not provide for affordable housing.  They felt that there should be a condition to prevent holiday lets and expressed concerns regarding the practicalities of the basement cycle storage.

In response to questions from Members in relation to the planned ‘rest’ garden, they stated that greater consultation with residents was needed and that the developers should maintain the garden in perpetuity.

Richard France, the Developer, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that they had collaborated with CYC officers to develop the brownfield site and meet the city’s housing need.  They had acted on comments and reduced the height and massing of the development.  He stated that short term lets would be prohibited.

In response to questions, he confirmed they were willing to come to an agreement on the planting scheme, noting that the service charge fund would be used to maintain the site.  The increase in costs since they had owned the plot had meant that including affordable housing was no longer possible.

Sue Sparling, the architect, explained the cycle storage plans in more detail and confirmed that Highways had advised that residents would not be eligible for residents parking permits.

Officers reported, in relation to the viability mechanism, that affordable housing was an aspirational target, whereas services such as education were considered essential.  National planning guidance was that the viability review mechanism needed to be simple and fair; should the profit be higher than expected this would come back to the council as a commuted sum that would go towards affordable housing but changes in build costs would need to be taken into account.

Following debate, Cllr Fenton proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application, subject to the s106 agreement, the amendments in the update and additional informatives for the developer to include the restriction on parking permits in their marketing and that the use of individual apartments for short term holiday letting was considered to be a material change of use requiring planning permission. This was seconded by Cllr Orrell.

On being put to a vote, Members voted four in favour of the motion and one against, it was therefore:

Resolved:             That the application be approved, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement by the Head of Planning and Development Services, through delegated authority.

Reason:                The site is within an area identified for regeneration in the DLP 2018 (Castle Gateway).  The scheme makes effective use of land and would provide housing and these are benefits to be given substantial weight according to the NPPF.  There would not be harm to heritage assets, no undue impact on surrounding occupant’s amenity and technical issues can be addressed through conditions.  The scheme is unable to be policy compliant in terms of affordable housing provision and this has been independently verified by the Council’s district valuer.  A review mechanism can be included in a legal agreement to capture any uplift in value of the scheme.   

[8pm, Cllr Orrell left the meeting. Cllrs Melly and Clarke rejoined

the meeting]